tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post8123365115165640803..comments2008-06-08T02:28:25.064-04:00Damon Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16561311551267979837noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-9871393610495644172008-06-08T02:28:00.000-04:002008-06-08T02:28:00.000-04:00You raise an interesting point, and I find it a bit troubling because it reinforces my own concerns. I agree with the general principles of agile development, and I find them quite useful in my work. However, my interactions with the authors and proponents of the manifesto have left me feeling as though I had engaged in a religious debate. I get the sense that these individuals are so wedded to their views so as to be totally closed to anything different. It is thus not surprising that they would be against changing their principles. After all, if something is free to change, it implies it may be wrong.<BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of the philosophy of Karl Popper. I'm paraphrasing, but he essentially said that science is that which lies between contradiction and tautology. The former is illogical, and the latter is bigoted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-69906023397679307232008-05-11T13:53:00.000-04:002008-05-11T13:53:00.000-04:00Blog messages are really good, keep up the good work.<BR/><BR/>Folk, find information on software QA and testing in http://softwaretesting-faq.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-22434844816887891672008-04-09T14:14:00.000-04:002008-04-09T14:14:00.000-04:00How would you like to see the manifesto change? To my mind it's too succinct and spare to change much without completely altering its meaning, or making it harder to understand. As it is, people often mistake it for a rejection of the "things on the right", even though the last sentence specifically indicates they're valuable.bjornghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02599997430419706273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-28316174741004751042008-03-10T13:15:00.000-04:002008-03-10T13:15:00.000-04:00Hi Rob,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that google would completely agree with you that Manifestos don't change, but it could certainly be argued that Manifestos tend to change less than other types of documents.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I think you've sort of added a point to my argument. Perhaps calling the document a Manifesto was not (in retrospect) the best term to use for a document intended to promote a way of thinking that is all about embracing the idea that requirements frequently change.<BR/><BR/>No matter how you slice it, I find it kind of funny to be having a discussion about how I misunderstand that a document about embracing change is not supposed to change. :-)<BR/><BR/>As to your question about the logistics, I'm not really sure how to respond. You seem to be arguing that even if changing the document was the right thing to do, it shouldn't be done because it is too hard to do.<BR/><BR/>The only thing I can think of to say on the subject of the logistics is that revising important documents is managed quite successfully on a regular basis by many people for many documents. I'm not sure why this document is somehow different in that regard.Damon Poolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16561311551267979837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-30563846161884732592008-03-07T04:41:00.000-05:002008-03-07T04:41:00.000-05:00I think you misunderstand the meaning of a manifesto. The Agile Manifesto, like all manifestos (manifesti?), is intended to be a concrete statement, a line in the sand, a rallying cry. It's not a "this week we think this, next week we might think something else" kind of document.<BR/><BR/>Supposing you did change it. What would you do with all those signatories? You can't claim that they signed up to the manifesto you've just published - they didn't - so you'd have to start again and ask them to re-sign having read the changed document. Not only would this be a logistical nightmare even in cyberspace, you'd then have people discussing their views with respect to different versions of the Agile Manifesto "I was a signatory up to version 1.103, but after that they got too specific about TDD" vs. "I didn't sign until version 2.0, which was the first version that stated you can't have a hierarchical team strucutre" - are these two people Agile, or not?<BR/><BR/>The only way is to keep it simple and unchanging. The Agile Manifesto not only does not need to be "versioned", it SHOULD not be versioned. By all means, if you think there's something missing, then post your own manifesto up and ask people to sign up to that.Robnoreply@blogger.com